The Modern Heresy

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc

Belloc offers his view of the transitions that occurred in the west after the Reformation and the modern heresy that followed – the heresy that we, in fact, are currently living through.  It will be my last post on this book.

The Transition

In the aftermath of the Reformation, men of Europe would come to regard religion as a secondary thing; at the same time, the dissolution of the Catholic position in Europe would unleash energies that Catholicism restrained – especially in competition and commerce. 

Both Catholic and Protestant cultures advanced in physical sciences and colonization, but the Protestant cultures were more vigorous:

To take one example: in the Protestant culture (save where it was remote and simple) the free peasant, protected by ancient customs, declined.  He died out because the old customs which supported him against the rich were broken up.

The rights (protected by custom) that the peasant previously held in property were lost, leaving such men without substance in difficult times.  I have examined before the position of the serf in the Middle Ages (and, more broadly, the classical liberalism of the time); in many ways, the serf of the time enjoyed more rights in his property and life than do the “free” men of the west today.

But the great, the chief, example of what was happening through the break-up of the old Catholic European unity, was the rise of banking.

Usury was practiced everywhere, but in the Catholic culture it was restricted by law and practiced with difficulty.  In the Protestant culture it became a matter of course.

Belloc identifies the merchants of Holland and England as introducing the practices of “modern banking.” 

I am certainly no expert on the history of modern banking, however I do believe the concepts of fractional-reserve banking and central banks were legitimized and institutionalized in these two Protestant countries (along with Sweden, also a Protestant country).  While I do not want to put words in Belloc’s mouth, it seems possible that when he speaks of “usury” and modern banking, what he means is this idea of charging interest on air.

[In an attempt to gain some understanding of this topic of usury in the traditional Catholic view, I read several examinations online using a search on the terms: usury Catholic tradition.  I found absolute statements against the practice, statements of conditional acceptance, different practices at different times driven by expanding foreign trade, etc.  So…this is why I concluded the last sentence in the preceding paragraph – I just don’t know what else Belloc could have meant given the context in which he makes this statement.]

Confidence was on the Protestant side, and waning on the Catholic.  The Protestant countries had superiority in financial, military and naval power.  This was drastically exaggerated with the establishment of the Protestant America. 

Italy, Spain, and Portugal in decline; England, Germany (led by Prussian Protestants) and America on the rise; France, confused and in constant turmoil after the Revolution.

The Tide Turns

Belloc sees the tide turning against this Protestant wave at around the turn of the last century (“somewhere between 1885 and 1904”; coincidentally – or not – the start of the Progressive era).  Not toward re-establishment of the Catholic Church, but in terms of the breakdown of ideas that gave the Protestant culture its strength.

Protestantism was being strangled at its root, at its spiritual root; therefore the material fruits of that tree were beginning to wither.

Belloc identifies two causes.  The first, perhaps less important, was a certain level of confidence reappearing in at least some nations of Catholic Europe – specifically in the wealthier classes of these nations.  More important was the decline of the Protestant culture from within, “the great internal weakness of the Protestant culture as opposed to the Catholic.” 

The Devil is in the Details

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc

No one can deny that the evils provoking reform in the Church were deep-rooted and widespread.  They threatened the very life of Christendom itself.

In this post I will examine Belloc’s treatment of the Reformation.  As has been the case for all of my posts on this general topic, I will not examine or discuss the theological issues (beyond the historical impacts).  In this post, I will not even examine the impacts on the culture and tradition. 

Instead, I will examine the story itself, the history of the Reformation as seen by Belloc.  Through this history, one might find a window to our own times – a window, perhaps, to the roots of every reform movement that has the potential to evolve into one that is revolutionary.

Now, both Catholics and Protestants today tend to commit a capital historical error.  They tend to regard Catholicism on the one side, Protestantism on the other, as two mainly opposed religions and moral systems, producing, from the very origins of the movement, opposed and even sharply contrasted moral characters in their individual members. (Emphasis in original.)

This was not how the primary actors thought of themselves at the time.  To summarize: Belloc offers that from 1517 until about 1600, the movement known as the “Reformation” was seen as a quarrel within Christendom; a debate that would come to some kind of ultimate decision resulting in general religious peace and unity. 

Failing this, and after the Thirty Year’s War and the Eighty Years’ War – wars pitting Catholics against Protestants – the Peace of Westphalia was an attempt to make the best of the disunion; the separation was made complete about fifty years after these treaties, by about 1700.  Belloc describes the time since 1700 for the Catholics as one of increasing doubt and even an anti-Catholic spirit; for the Protestants as one of accepting all forms of religious differences.

                                                 

Only a few of the most ardent Reformers had an intention to destroy Catholicism; even fewer had the objective to set out a counter-religion.  The majority of the “Reformers” had as their objective to “reform.” 

You might put it this way: there was no one born between the years 1450 – 1500 who did not, by the critical date of 1517, when the explosion took place, see that something had to be done, and in proportion to their integrity and knowledge were men eager that something should be done….

On the other side, the objective of those defending orthodoxy was in restoring unity.  Unfortunately, as is the case in many reforms movements that butt up against powerful interests with different objectives, the devil is in the details.

The stages of the revolution – and, perhaps, of all reform movements that are unable to avoid catastrophe: first, “reforms which are manifestly just and necessary” are proposed – in order to correct “innovations which are criminal and mad”; second, the thing to be reformed necessarily resists; third – the stage when proposed reform turns to revolution:

…there appear among the revolutionaries an increasing number who are not so much concerned to set right the evils which have grown up in the thing to be reformed, as filled with a passionate hatred for the thing itself – its essential, its good, that by which it has a right to survive. (Emphasis in original.)

The origins of what is now known as the Reformation can be traced perhaps two-hundred years before Luther’s infamous act:

Many have taken as the starting point of the affair the abandonment of Rome by the Papacy and its establishment at Avignon, more than two hundred years before Luther’s outbreak.

Belloc describes this view as having some truth, but an imperfect truth.  Instead, he sees as the main starting point the plague, “the Black Death” of 1348 – 1350.  The origins might even be traced to an event thirty years after this, with the opening of the great schism (Western Schism) – a struggle of Popes and anti-popes.

Let’s take each of these in turn:

Rise of the Phoenix

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc

It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.

So writes Belloc, as published in 1938.  Before considering the heresy and the history both before and since he wrote these words, perhaps it is worth considering the situation in Muslim lands at the time he was writing.

1938

After the Great War, what was left of Mohammedan power even in hither Asia, let alone Constantinople, was only saved by the violent quarrels between the Allies.

In 1938, almost all Muslims lived in lands controlled and occupied by a European power: virtually all of North Africa; all of the Middle East except Turkey (you might also except Saudi Arabia, but must recognize the British position in their oil); much of Central Asia; finally, the Asian sub-continent. 

It was in this environment of the Muslim’s weakest point since its founding that Belloc foresaw the rise once again of a Muslim threat to Europe. 

The History

Belloc offers a brief history of the rise and fall of Islam as a political power and empire:

Islam – the teaching of Mohammed – conquered immediately in arms.  Mohammed’s Arabian converts charged into Syria and won two great battles…

They quickly overran Egypt and Northern Africa, Asia Minor, finally crossing the Straits of Gibraltar into Spain.  By 732 – less than 100 years after their first victories – Muslim armies reached as far as Northern France.  They were thrown back to the Pyrenees, but continued to hold most of Spain.

We know of the Crusades called by the Pope.  These were not called in a vacuum; they were called in reaction to the violent conquest of Christian lands in the Middle East.  Brief successes followed by ultimate failure.

If the first Crusaders had had enough men to take Damascus their effort would have been permanently successful.

But they had only enough men to hold the seacoast of Palestine (I expand on this history here and here, also thanks to Belloc).  Perhaps a similar reason as to why Syria is so important today.

Europe finally beat back Muslim advances into Europe on September 11, 1683:

The battle was fought by the Habsburg Monarchy, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire, under the command of King John III Sobieski against the Ottomans and their vassal and tributary states. The battle marked the first time the Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire had cooperated militarily against the Ottomans, and it is often seen as a turning point in history, after which "the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world".

The exclamation point was placed on September 11, 1697:

The Battle of Zenta…on the east side of the Tisa river, was a major engagement in the Great Turkish War (1683–1699) and one of the most decisive defeats in Ottoman history.

This battle ended Ottoman control over large parts of Central Europe.  And from this point, we come to 1938 and the aforementioned European control over the vast majority of lands populated by Muslims, as Muslims gradually lost the race to Europeans in the material things necessary to wage war.

Interesting how September 11 keeps coming up in this relationship.

Islam as Heresy

Belloc offers that Islam is a heresy and not a wholly new religion:

It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy.  It was a perversion of Christian doctrine.

If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammedism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel.

Mohammed taught basically the Catholic doctrine, with a very important exception:

Heresy

The Great Heresies, by Hilaire Belloc

In this book, Belloc reviews five different heresies.  As I have noted in the past on this general topic, my interest (at this blog) is not theological; it is in what such things mean for culture, tradition and governance.

Belloc reviews the following heresies, dedicating one chapter to each: Arian, Mohammed, Albigensian, the Reformation, the modern age.  I don’t know how much time I will spend on the details of each, although given my interests I suspect the chapter on the Reformation will be of particular interest.

In this post I will review his introduction – there is much that is meaningful both regarding definition and in regard to a uniting tradition.  Belloc defines what he means specifically by the term “heresy”:

Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein.

Belloc applies this to subjects as varied as physics, mathematics and philosophy.  In physics, you cannot just remove the idea of matter relative to gravity; in geometry, you cannot only remove the concept that the interior angles of a triangle equal two right angles.  In other words, you can’t change just one thing and expect the remainder to function as it was.

It is not heresy to deny a subject wholesale.  The heresy is when most of the important components are left untouched, thereby appealing to believers as something not meaningfully different from that being attacked.

Wherefore, it is said of heresies that “they survive by the truths that retain.”

How does this relate to my interests?

…the subject of heresy in general is of the highest importance to the individual and to society, and heresy in its particular meaning (which is that of heresy in Christian doctrine) is of special interest for anyone who would understand Europe: the character of Europe and the story of Europe.

I’m sold.

Why do men combat heresies?  Is it simply a matter of conservatism, a “devotion to routine,” or a disturbance in their habits of thought?  No, it is something much more:

…it is much more a perception that the heresy, insofar as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme.

Is it merely conservatism (and if it is, is this inherently “bad”)?  What happens to governance when the way of living is delivered a mortal blow?  Is it likely that government by force will decrease?  I think the answer to this is obvious.

Take, for example, the idea of an immortal soul.  What happens if it is generally accepted that this just isn’t so?

If they except, that is cut out, this one doctrine, they may continue to hold all the others, but the scheme is changed, the type of life and character and the rest become other.

One can accept the Virgin Birth, that Jesus is both the Son of God and God, that bread and wine are transformed in a particular manner; but if he removes this one plank – the idea of an immortal soul – he will be quite a different man than the man who accepts this plank.

Those considered noble during much of the Middle Ages worked to maintain this noble standing in front of their peers, superiors and subordinates.  Can one say the same of the “nobles” of today?  The ones held out as “noble” are often the most vulgar, most corrupt, most abusive.

Let me try it this way:

Far in the distant future

Beyond the pages of our time

Cold-blooded wicked tyrants

Threaten the freedom of mankind

Corruption, lust, and greed

Define the new nobility

Changing the course of history

-        Dream Theater, The Gift of Music

Would a man who believed in the immortality of his soul act this way?

Such a heresy does not merely affect the individual who accepts it; it affects all of society if generally accepted.

That is why anyone who wants to understand how Europe came to be, and how its changes have been caused, cannot afford to treat heresy as unimportant.

It is of secondary importance (for the purposes of this post) if the doctrine is true; what is important is that it is believed and that this belief shapes behavior.

Must man believe such things, holding certain beliefs in common; why not just dump the idea of a common creed?

In deed there is no denying it.  It is mere fact.  Human society cannot carry on without some creed, because a code and a character are a product of a creed.

Sheltered individuals can carry on without such a unifying creed; for an organized society, it cannot be so.  The idea of the non-aggression principle – negative liberty – being all that is necessary to hold a society together in relative peace is not only insufficient, it has no precedent.

Heresy, then, is not just a fossil subject.  It is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without some form of which no human society ever has endured.

You can’t replace something with nothing.  Absent traditional religion, we are offered the religions of patriotism and equality.  With one, we are convinced toward constant war and worship of political leaders, with the other we accept socialism.

The European culture was made by religion, specifically the Christian religion and specifically that which was shepherded by the Catholic Church.  Belloc intends to examine this.

Conclusion

As mentioned, Belloc’s last chapter is on the heresy of the modern age; this age has no common name as of yet (this book was published in 1938).  Perhaps a name will come…

…but not until the conflict between that modern anti-Christian spirit and the permanent tradition of the Faith becomes acute through persecution and the triumph or defeat thereof.  It will then perhaps be called anti-Christ.

Or it will be called socialism and progressivism.